Who is working with the SAM9263?
in [Embedded]
|
From: rickman on 28 Mar 2007 20:46 I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the other SAM92xx eval boards? In general, what are your experiences with these parts?
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 29 Mar 2007 01:26 "rickman" <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet news:1175129175.899218.6800(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 > MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. > Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the > other SAM92xx eval boards? > > In general, what are your experiences with these parts? > It might be related to the undocumented GPS receiver on the chip. Some restrictions I have found: Cannot use SDRAM on EBI1, only on EBI0 or you will lose the Ethernet due to the muxing PSRAMs are next best alternative, the ST one on the board appears to be obsolete already , but there is a replacement from Micron. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
From: rickman on 29 Mar 2007 08:51 On Mar 29, 1:26 am, "Ulf Samuelsson" <u...(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: > "rickman" <gnu...(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:1175129175.899218.6800(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 > > MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. > > Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the > > other SAM92xx eval boards? > > > In general, what are your experiences with these parts? > > It might be related to the undocumented GPS receiver on the chip. Anything is possible, but the two frequencies are not related by an integer combination I can find. This seems odd to me since they specify the frequency so exactly to 7 decimal places. This is about the limit of what a reasonable crystal can provide. > Some restrictions I have found: > > Cannot use SDRAM on EBI1, only on EBI0 > or you will lose the Ethernet due to the muxing > > PSRAMs are next best alternative, the ST one on the > board appears to be obsolete already , but there is > a replacement from Micron. I also noticed that the eval boards for the SAM9 devices are around $1,000 US. I think the only one significantly less is for the SAM9260 which is about $600. Why are they so expensive?
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 29 Mar 2007 15:11 "rickman" <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet news:1175172664.914528.170940(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 29, 1:26 am, "Ulf Samuelsson" <u...(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: >> "rickman" <gnu...(a)gmail.com> skrev i >> meddelandetnews:1175129175.899218.6800(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >I am looking at using the SAM9263 and noticed that they use a 16.36766 >> > MHz crystal rather than the 18.432 they use on the SAM7 eval boards. >> > Anyone know why they picked this value? Do they use this value on the >> > other SAM92xx eval boards? >> >> > In general, what are your experiences with these parts? >> >> It might be related to the undocumented GPS receiver on the chip. > > Anything is possible, but the two frequencies are not related by an > integer combination I can find. This seems odd to me since they > specify the frequency so exactly to 7 decimal places. This is about > the limit of what a reasonable crystal can provide. > Some people find it difficult to with the 2% requirement of RS-232. Communication by Radio to something in the stratosphere may require a little better crystal. There is nothing to stop you from switching to a different crystal (I.E: 18,432 Mhz) in your own design. Since the GPS is not accessible, you have no need for that frequency. > >> Some restrictions I have found: >> >> Cannot use SDRAM on EBI1, only on EBI0 >> or you will lose the Ethernet due to the muxing >> >> PSRAMs are next best alternative, the ST one on the >> board appears to be obsolete already , but there is >> a replacement from Micron. > > I also noticed that the eval boards for the SAM9 devices are around > $1,000 US. I think the only one significantly less is for the SAM9260 > which is about $600. Why are they so expensive? > Because someone wanted cheaper development boards than those for the AT91RM9200 which started off at $5000 and went down eventually to $1250. Someone told me some years ago that the AT91RM9200EK PCB in Atmel volumes is about $100. I am lobbying for a new way of building development tools which should allow Atmel to bring down its cost structure. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
From: Jim Granville on 29 Mar 2007 17:31 Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > "rickman" <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet >> >>I also noticed that the eval boards for the SAM9 devices are around >>$1,000 US. I think the only one significantly less is for the SAM9260 >>which is about $600. Why are they so expensive? >> > > > Because someone wanted cheaper development boards > than those for the AT91RM9200 which started off at $5000 > and went down eventually to $1250. > > Someone told me some years ago that the AT91RM9200EK PCB > in Atmel volumes is about $100. > > I am lobbying for a new way of building development tools > which should allow Atmel to bring down its cost structure. I did see a 32Bit/Linux EvalPCB, for just $69, recently on Atmel's web site : http://www.atmel.com/dyn/corporate/view_detail.asp?ref=&FileName=AVR32NGKit_3_26.html&SEC_NAME=Product shows what can be done for well under $100 [Needs JTAG cable too] -jg
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: Speed/power tradeoff in ARMs Next: MSP-FET430UIF, IAR Kickstart: |